Was Lynching Terrorism?

[classical_hero]

Oh? Really, I had no idea refusing to bow before whitey was a crime. Please, tell me more.

I didn't say all I said many. It was an excuse they used to use vigilante "justice" whether they were guilty or not. You could say similar things have happened in modern times like the West Memphis Three where three teenagers where basically were found guilty by the media without any evidence and as result of that they had no chance when they were brought to trial. Basically they tried to use the law to help them make a case without actually applying the law properly, since you need to have a trial for that, which never happened.

But I'm wondering what were the problems for the Whites who were lynched? Surely it can't be because they refused to "bow to whitey".

 

[kramerfan86]

But I'm wondering what were the problems for the Whites who were lynched? Surely it can't be because they refused to "bow to whitey".

Ummmm pretty much. You said yourself that many of the whites got lynched because they were standing up against the mobs. Not exactly uncommon for terrorists to kill members of their own group for failing to follow what they believe should be the standards for that group.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If this is directed at me, because I spoke categorically without providing a definition, then how about the following:

Not you specifically, but also

Murderous violence directed at members of some identifiable population by representatives of a group zealously convinced of its own righteousness, which violence is calculated, by aspects of the form that it takes (surprising, out-of-the-blue; spectacular) to intimidate other members of that identifiable population.

Not that bad. If a bit convolute. But I like it better than mine
Though a spontaneous mob wouldn't fit, would it? Since then violence would not be calculated but be an act of passion or something like this?

 

[JollyRoger]

But I'm wondering what were the problems for the Whites who were lynched? Surely it can't be because they refused to "bow to whitey".

It was to send the message that others whites need to bow to whitey thus an extension of the terrorism committed against blacks in the named of trumped up vigilantism.

 

[sophie]

But I'm wondering what were the problems for the Whites who were lynched? Surely it can't be because they refused to "bow to whitey".

Nope, that's exactly what it was.

 

[Bootstoots]

rec'd

Moderator Action: This is a bit too spammy for RD.

 

[downtown]

I don't understand how anybody with even a cursory understanding of American history could reach the conclusion that it wasn't terrorism. Of course it was.

 

[Borachio]

I agree.

But for someone who accepts that the Bible is literally the word of God, and literally true - so that slavery is a perfectly acceptable practice - lynching former slaves might not be seen as terrorism.

Especially if they were found guilty of being in possession of an offensive wife knife.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Though a spontaneous mob wouldn't fit, would it? Since then violence would not be calculated but be an act of passion or something like this?

Does your spontaneous mob simply trample their victim to death, or do they retain the presence of mind amid their blind passionate fury to tie a noose and make a spectacle of their victim?

Now you appreciate the brilliance of my definition (which you call "convolute"; hrumph; by the way, I thought you were German; can any verbal construction be convolute to a German?)

 

[classical_hero]

I agree.

But for someone who accepts that the Bible is literally the word of God, and literally true - so that slavery is a perfectly acceptable practice - lynching former slaves might not be seen as terrorism.

Especially if they were found guilty of being in possession of an offensive wife knife.

I wonder why William Wilberforce was the catalyst of ending slavery in the English speaking world. He certainly is what someone who would be considered very similar in leaning with regards to the Bible that I have, in fact the opponents of slavery would be classified as the Religious Right. Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about, which is typical in such discussions.

 

[Borachio]

Well, you either accept that the Bible is literally true in every particular or you don't, Mr Hero.

Clearly Wilberforce didn't.

Sola gratia, Sola fide, Sola scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo gloria. Hallelujah!!

Hang on. What's that mean again? It looks like Latin. But I don't speak Latin.

 

[Cutlass]

This author thinks it's proper to call lynching terrorism.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Does your spontaneous mob simply trample their victim to death, or do they retain the presence of mind amid their blind passionate fury to tie a noose and make a spectacle of their victim?

Good point. Spontaneous terrorism, then.

Now you appreciate the brilliance of my definition

I most of all appreciate your effort to put this discussion on solid grounds, else we easily run the risk of confusing terrorism with the associated judgment thereof.

I thought you were German; can any verbal construction be convolute to a German?)

If said in such a crude language as English, most certainly. For one, not a single word of your definition exceeds 16 letters, and only one even manages that.
To convey the contrast of English and German, I like to invoke the image of a bunch of lego blocks on the one side and a living tree stretching into the air where it unfolds its majestic branching, on the other.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I wonder why William Wilberforce was the catalyst of ending slavery in the English speaking world. He certainly is what someone who would be considered very similar in leaning with regards to the Bible that I have, in fact the opponents of slavery would be classified as the Religious Right. Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about, which is typical in such discussions.

Moderator Action: Let's not stray into the personal, please.



Was the government sponsored, cartel action to kill students in Mexico terrorism?

 

[Berzerker]

CH is right, some lynchings were vigilantes stringing up criminals and some were to terrorize people

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Why did they not call the police? Surely the least of police's problem was to bring the full force of the law to Afro-Americans. If so, there at the very least lingers a shadow of terrorism against Afro-Americans.

 

[Tahuti]

Why did they not call the police? Surely the least of police's problem was to bring the full force of the law to Afro-Americans. If so, there at the very least lingers a shadow of terrorism against Afro-Americans.

The United States was relatively late in creating a modern police force. A significant part of law enforcement was allowed to citizens. Hence, the second amendment.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well that would only mean that generally policing and terrorism will be an indistinguishable mush in this case.

 

[Tahuti]

Well that would only mean that generally policing and terrorism will be an indistinguishable mush in this case.

Not every case of legal vigilantism ended up in a bloodbath or a lynching. In fact, killings and lynchings were arguably the exception that proved the general rule.

Though you make a valid point in that lynchings often relatively few ways of getting prosecuted, and that police forces could have been expanded as a response to this.

 

[BvBPL]

Why did they not call the police? Surely the least of police's problem was to bring the full force of the law to Afro-Americans. If so, there at the very least lingers a shadow of terrorism against Afro-Americans.

Let's not disregard the fact that plenty of lynching were performed with the cooperation of the po-po.